Baptism

[ZACTAK]

Hey guys. I had a question for you, I am in the denomination Disciples of Christ, and I have not been baptized since I was a baby. My question to you all is do I have to be baptized again, or was the one baptism good enough?

I do want to hear your opinions, but I also would like to see some scripture if it is possible to back up what you are saying (not necessary because I DO want to hear your opinions too.)

[New_Wineskin]

Hey guys. I had a question for you, I am in the denomination Disciples of Christ, and I have not been baptized since I was a baby. My question to you all is do I have to be baptized again, or was the one baptism good enough?

I do want to hear your opinions, but I also would like to see some scripture if it is possible to back up what you are saying (not necessary because I DO want to hear your opinions too.)

Well , I thought that Luther and Calvin thought that people who wanted to be anabaptists ( baptized after being forcefully infant baptized ) should be burned to death .

As far as I am concerned , you can throw water on yourself every day or every hour and call them all "baptisms" . After all , getting wet removes sin . One cannot be too sinless .

[Willo]

I would say be baptised again.

Only because as an infant you had no knowledge of what is going on, and in scriptures it shows only those who had repented (turned from sin) were baptised.

If you have repented, then be baptised with the knowledge of why you are doing it.

[Knight]

All I will say is that the NT model of baptism is always faith/repentance and then baptism.

There is never an explicit case where baptism preceeds faith. There are those who would argue in favor of infant baptism as a covenant sign. However, I would not be one of those.

I was baptised as an adult and I have to tell you that it was one of the most rewarding experiences of my Christian walk.

[Stinker]

Hey guys. I had a question for you, I am in the denomination Disciples of Christ, and I have not been baptized since I was a baby. My question to you all is do I have to be baptized again, or was the one baptism good enough?

I do want to hear your opinions, but I also would like to see some scripture if it is possible to back up what you are saying (not necessary because I DO want to hear your opinions too.)

Before one is water baptized, they must first have been spiritually 'born-again' according to Jn.3:3-8

Many churches teach that one is born-again by just believing. Without any further evidence of spiritual regeneration.

When one is 'born-again' of the Holy Spirit there is a sudden change of character for the good. There is a zeal to learn God's word and a zeal to obey every command that Jesus issued to us in the New Testament.

Granted, it is difficult to see a dramatic change for the good in a young person brought up in a very Christ-like home, who is making a claim of having been recently born-again. It is very much apparent if that young person has come from a very sin filled home.

If you have had such an experience of having been born-again, then it would be scriptural to follow through with the command to be baptized (Mt.28:19).

This public demonstration shows that you have already been born-again spiritually and are now showing this publically.

[WesWoodell]

Belief precedes baptism 100% of the time in the Bible. Yes, you should be baptized now if you believe. Infant baptism is not Scriptural.

[Edouard]

Baptism:

Infant baptism is not scriptural and was actually created in the 1400 or 1500 hundreds by the catholic church.

Book of JOhn chapter 3: tells us that to be born again we must be baptized by water and spirit!

Baptism is an outward symbol or our belief and the renewing our of our minds.
Corinthians talks to s about how, when we are buried under water it burries the old self, and when we come up out of the water, we are cleansed.

Our Messiah was baptized at the age of 33 when he began his ministry as an outward acceptance of His Father's will for his life and to let us know that he was and is our Messiah!

Edouard
May God Jesus and the Holy Spirit convict your heart and mind :)

[- DRA -]

Before one is water baptized, they must first have been spiritually 'born-again' according to Jn.3:3-8

Many churches teach that one is born-again by just believing. Without any further evidence of spiritual regeneration.

When one is 'born-again' of the Holy Spirit there is a sudden change of character for the good. There is a zeal to learn God's word and a zeal to obey every command that Jesus issued to us in the New Testament.

Granted, it is difficult to see a dramatic change for the good in a young person brought up in a very Christ-like home, who is making a claim of having been recently born-again. It is very much apparent if that young person has come from a very sin filled home.

If you have had such an experience of having been born-again, then it would be scriptural to follow through with the command to be baptized (Mt.28:19).

This public demonstration shows that you have already been born-again spiritually and are now showing this publically.

Stinker,

I would beg to differ with your understanding of how one is born again. According to Romans 6:3-11, one is born again -- dies to sin, becomes freed from it, and becomes alive to God DURING baptism -- NOT before.

How much of a "public demonstration" was the eunuch's baptism in Acts 8:35-39? It seems that Philip was the only person there . . . and he baptized the eunuch.

Let's discuss this.

In His service, :bow:
. . . DRA

[- DRA -]

Hey guys. I had a question for you, I am in the denomination Disciples of Christ, and I have not been baptized since I was a baby. My question to you all is do I have to be baptized again, or was the one baptism good enough?

I do want to hear your opinions, but I also would like to see some scripture if it is possible to back up what you are saying (not necessary because I DO want to hear your opinions too.)

Consider who is a candidate for baptism:
1.) Those who believe (Mark 16:16)
2.) Those who repent of their sins (Acts 2:38)
3.) Those who confess Jesus (Rom. 10:9-10, Acts 8:35-39)

Now ask yourself, can an infant believe that Jesus is both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), repent of sins, and confess Jesus as Lord? If they can, then they can be Scripturally baptized in the name of the Lord. However, if they cannot, they can NOT be Scripturally baptized.

As far as one being re-baptized, consider Acts 18:24 through 19:5. Some disciples had only been baptized with the baptism of John (which was NO longer applicable). They were baptized again -- this time in the name of the Lord (see Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:47-48).

I hope this helps set you on the right path in your journey through life.

[Highland Watchman]

Baptism:

Infant baptism is not scriptural and was actually created in the 1400 or 1500 hundreds by the catholic church.

Book of JOhn chapter 3: tells us that to be born again we must be baptized by water and spirit!

Baptism is an outward symbol or our belief and the renewing our of our minds.
Corinthians talks to s about how, when we are buried under water it burries the old self, and when we come up out of the water, we are cleansed.

Our Messiah was baptized at the age of 33 when he began his ministry as an outward acceptance of His Father's will for his life and to let us know that he was and is our Messiah!

Edouard
May God Jesus and the Holy Spirit convict your heart and mind :)

Um... I think infant baptism has been around since at least the 4th century, around the time of Augustine, who wrote that even babes are born in sin and need to be cleansed from sin, which is more or less where the idea of baptism=forgiveness of sins comes in... because even then, there was a high mortality rate, and the question was raised as to whether or not babies (who are not baptised) are allowed into Heaven. The Orthodox church practices infant baptism also, which is further proof that it is something that's been around since the early years of the church...

The understanding that Calvin had (and possibly Luther, though I'll have to get back to you on that) is more of a covenental understanding, where baptism is the external sign (sacrament) of the new covenant people (the church, Gentiles who are allowed to join with Israel as the spiritual descendants of Abraham)... Where circumcision is the sign of the people Israel, baptism is the sign of the people of the Messiah/Christ.

It is also explained that circumcision happens 8 days after a male child is born, before the child can choose to be obedient to God or not, and Romans 2 explains that circumcision does not make one a part of the spiritual Israel, who are God's chosen people, but rather that a true Israelite is one who is circumcised inwardly, in their hearts. Yet, the understanding among Jews is that if you are born a Jew, you are a Jew and are thus circumcised as a Jew. It is part of your identity. As the people of the New Covenant, Calvin and those who follow him suggest that baptism has the same effect, and also that we are to raise up these babies in the truth, which is the Gospel... The baby/child is now part of the Covenant people of God, but must be held accountible by the church to live up to their baptism and salvation, thus legitimizing the children who are raised in the church and give their hearts to Jesus before they are 12 or 13... I was actually discussing this with a Presbyterian friend of mine who explained this to me, and it makes sense.

The anabaptist and holiness traditions, on the other hand, do stress the need to rebaptism... which by looking at the majority of responses on this thread, my guess would be that the majority of the people here come from one of these traditions, where baptism is only given to those who confess Christ as Lord and are old enough... This is not a bad thing, by far, as I personally view baptism as an external sign of something that has already happened. I believe that baptism in and of itself really does not mean anything, but rather is a symbol of something that actually has happened.

NFSteelers, to be honest, I don't think it really matters whether you are baptized again or not. What matters is that you are obedient to Christ and that you continue following HIM, proclaiming the Kingdom in all that you do, using words when necessary. If you are convicted in your heart that this obedience means being baptized again, then be baptized again. If not, then do not. Remember, there are legitimate believers on both sides of the debate, who can argue using scripture to back up their points. The important thing is that you are obedient and that you walk in the assurance and confidence that the LORD is pleased with you, whatever the choice and conviction happens to be. Go with God, my brother.

[- DRA -]

Um... I think infant baptism has been around since at least the 4th century, around the time of Augustine, who wrote that even babes are born in sin and need to be cleansed from sin, which is more or less where the idea of baptism=forgiveness of sins comes in...

The idea that "baptism=forgiveness of sin" actually is based on Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-11, and 1 Peter 3:21.

[Dmckay]

Hey guys. I had a question for you, I am in the denomination Disciples of Christ, and I have not been baptized since I was a baby. My question to you all is do I have to be baptized again, or was the one baptism good enough?

I do want to hear your opinions, but I also would like to see some scripture if it is possible to back up what you are saying (not necessary because I DO want to hear your opinions too.)
I really think that this is a question that you can answer for your self if you do a little reading, thinking and praying about it on your own. What does Baptism symbolize? I suggest that you read and spend some time meditating on Romans Chapter 6. Paul discusses the symbolism of baptism very well. Once you understand what Baptism is about, you should be able to answer the question for yourself.

I am not trying to just blow you off by responding this way. As a Pastor, when someone comes to me seeking baptism I question them about their understanding of the meaning of Baptism, why they want to be baptized, and what they think Baptism will mean in their life. If they can't tell me, or they don't understand it, I won't baptize them. I even did this with my own children. I believe that a proper understanding of the meaning and symbolism of Baptism is that important in the life of a believer.

[Amongst the Flock]

When you were a baby you were not aware of what was going on so I suggest according to the Bible that you have it done now that you know you are saved and know what is going on.


Read Romans 6 Dead to sin, Alive in Christ.

verse 11

In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Jesus Christ.

Water baptism after salvation is a public confession to the world that you have put to death the sinful nature when you go under the water and when you come out it is symbolic of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It tells the world that you are starting a new life making Christ your new Master and putting to death the sinful nature which you were born into from the sin of Adam. The sinful nature or your fleshly desires used to be your master but now Jesus is. Make sure when you do it that your heart is into it and you don't just do it for the heck of it.

Acts 2:38

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In the first-century believers who came to salvation were baptized in water. Remember Jesus was baptized as well so why would we not want to do as our Savior did. You don't have to do it but it is a very moving experience and it is a public confession to the world that Jesus is your Lord and Savior.

Good Luck and have a great day. :)

[- DRA -]

I really think that this is a question that you can answer for your self if you do a little reading, thinking and praying about it on your own. What does Baptism symbolize? I suggest that you read and spend some time meditating on Romans Chapter 6. Paul discusses the symbolism of baptism very well. Once you understand what Baptism is about, you should be able to answer the question for yourself.

I am not trying to just blow you off by responding this way. As a Pastor, when someone comes to me seeking baptism I question them about their understanding of the meaning of Baptism, why they want to be baptized, and what they think Baptism will mean in their life. If they can't tell me, or they don't understand it, I won't baptize them. I even did this with my own children. I believe that a proper understanding of the meaning and symbolism of Baptism is that important in the life of a believer.

Baptism is symbolic in the sense that it unites us with Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. However, there is more involved. In baptism we die to sin, are freed from it, and become alive to God (Romans 6:3-11). That explains how baptism washes away sins i.e. Acts 22:16, and how baptism saves us by giving us a good conscience through the resurrection of Christ (see 1 Peter 3:21).

Bottom line. Baptism is an act of faith in the working of God -- NOT man (Colossians 2:12-13).

:clap:

[- DRA -]

When you were a baby you were not aware of what was going on so I suggest according to the Bible that you have it done now that you know you are saved and know what is going on.


Read Romans 6 Dead to sin, Alive in Christ.

verse 11

In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Jesus Christ.

Water baptism after salvation is a public confession to the world that you have put to death the sinful nature when you go under the water and when you come out it is symbolic of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It tells the world that you are starting a new life making Christ your new Master and putting to death the sinful nature which you were born into from the sin of Adam. The sinful nature or your fleshly desires used to be your master but now Jesus is. Make sure when you do it that your heart is into it and you don't just do it for the heck of it.

Acts 2:38

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In the first-century believers who came to salvation were baptized in water. Remember Jesus was baptized as well so why would we not want to do as our Savior did. You don't have to do it but it is a very moving experience and it is a public confession to the world that Jesus is your Lord and Savior.

Good Luck and have a great day. :)

Just want to make a few quick observations:

1.) Take a closer look at Romans 6:3-11. It describes what occurs during baptism - - NOT before. Be sure to note verses 5-7 and 11. In essence, those passages point out that it is in baptism that we die to sin, are freed from it, and become alive to God.

2.) On a similar note, consider the phrase "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38. It is the same in the Koine Greek as it is in our English translations for the identical phrase that is in Matthew 26:28. Now, do we have our sins taken away BEFORE Jesus shed his blood? Now, consider that it is the same expression (for the remission of sins) under consideration in Acts 2:38.

3.) If we accept what occurs DURING baptism and the purpose for the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (which, by the way, is NOT the same thing as the baptism of John that Jesus was baptized with), then we should be able to see how our sins are taken away in baptism -- it is because we are united with Jesus' death and His blood washes our sins away.

[Dispy]

Please read what I posted under "Babies and Baptism"

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

[Edouard]

NFSTEELER:

When Christ was baptised follow His course of Events.
1) Acknowledged His Father!
2) Accepted the Will of God!
3) The when Christ was Baptized, he received the Holy Spirit, publicly(interesting).
4) Then he began preaching!

What would be the events for a person to be baptized?
1) like many have already stated, John baptized with water - Christ baptized with water and Spirit!

*2) Acts & Romans repent of your sins!
3) Acknowledge Christ as Lord and Saviour
4) Follow His word and obey His teachings.
5) proclaim the Good News!!
6) When we are baptized we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit:)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highland WatchmenL:

1) I will look into the dating of infant baptism.

The question then is when does a child sin? Or is the child born of original sin, which is the view of catholic and lutheran (i dont know calvin). My personal background is church of christ - nondenominational. I also believe that a child is born perfect without sin! Jeremiah 1, and Genesis 1-3. God says his creation is good, until what? man sins.
then children are born into a sinful world. If a child is born of sin, how then can GOd create something pure, if knowing it will be sinful?

more indepth: IF all babies are born out of original sin; how then is Christ perfect?
reasoning Mary would have been born of sin! Keep in mind sex is not sinning when married!

Baptism is a command by the way.. Matthew 28.

The debate continues on how... :) we can thank man-made traditions for this.
Keep in mind there are no recordings of Christ baptising an infant in scripture.

Edouard
May God grant us wisdom and love:)

[Dispy]

In the event that you did not read what I posted in "Babies and Baptism, I will repost it. It presents my views.

To thouroughly understand the meaning of water baptism, we must look at the history and purpose of the water rite and see if it still applies today in the dispensation of Grace.

In Genesis 12:1-3, the promise to Abram was that the nations would be blessed through his seed (Isreal).

In Exodus 19, 3-6 God told Moses to tell the children of Israel that if they would obey His voice and keep His covenant, then they would be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

In Exodus 29:1-4 We have the establishment of the priesthood and the washing with water (baptism) was a requirement.

In 2Samuel7:13-16 we have the promise of an everlasting kingdom and throne.

In Matthew 3:1-2 we find John the Baptist preaching repentance and baptism and proclaiming that kingdom at hand (about to be set up).

(The dispensation of the Law was still in effect at this time and works were required to demonstrate faith. Therefore, salvation required believing, repenting and baptism. Baptism was the vehicle (work) that demonstrated faith. Further, I do believe that the water signified that one baptized became a member of "that nation of priests.")

In Matthew 3:11 John says the the One (Jesus) that was to follow him would baptize them with the Holy Ghost and with fire. The Holy Ghost baptism by Jesus did not require water. That could be accomplished by the laying on of hands as Acts 8:14-17 and 19-1-6 shows. However, those that did believe and were baptized in water at Pentecost did receive the Holy Ghost because they did as commanded in Acts 2:38.

In Matthew 4:23 we find Jesus preaching "the gospel of the kingdom"

In Matthew 10:5-7 we find Jesus COMMANDING His disciples to preach "the kingdom at hand" (about to be set up) to the Jews only.

Why to the Jews only? Because it was prophesied in Isaiah 42:6 that they were to be "for a light unto the Gentiles." Wasn't Abram promised that the nations (Gentiles) would be blessed through his seed (Israel) and didn't God tell Moses that if they kept the covenants of God that they would be "a nation of priests."

After the crucifiction of Christ Jesus gave the 11, the "so called" great commission. According to Luke 24:47, they were to begin at Jerusalem. Why? Because that is where Moses's seat was and the scribes and Pharisees sat in it, Mat23:2,3. How else could the nation of Israel be "a light unto the Gentiles" unless the leaders and children of Israel became that "nation of priest" by accepting their long promised Messiah. I doubt if the 12 could have done it all by themselves in their lifetime.

How did the leaders respond?. Well first they rejected God the Father when they refused to be baptizsed of John and ALLOWED him to be killed. Then they rejected God the Son when they DEMANNDED that Jesus be Crucified. Even after Peter gave them a second opportunity for Jesus and His kingdom to return (Acts 3:14-21) they rejected the Holy Ghost by KILLING (stoning) Stephen.

Now that the Jews, as a nation, rejected the Trinity, How could they be that "nation of priests" and a "light unto the Gentiles?" How could that "everlasting kingdom" be set up when they rejected the King. How could all the OT promises made to the Jewish fathers be fulfilled? They can't as long as the Jews do not recognize their King. The Jews, as a nation, do not recognize Jesus as their long promised Messiah, even to this day.

How is the "good news" of "the gospel of the kingdom" through the "so called" great commission going to now go to the nations now? Didn't the 12, that were commissioned to go to the nations, agree with Paul that he should go to the heathen (Gentiles) and that they would stay with the "circumcision" (Jews)? Are the 12 now out of the will of God? Wasn't Paul raised up to go to the Gentiles, kings and children of Israel? Why was there a need for Paul to be raised up to go the the entire world alone when there were already 12 commissioned to do so? Did Paul go about preaching "the gospel of the kingdom" (Law) and that "the kingdom at hand?" No!!! He never once offered the kingdom and the gospel he preached was "the gospel of the grace of God." Aren't Grace and Law opposite doctrines? He never once preached "repent and be baptize" as Peter did.

We learn from Romans 11:7-12, that Israel as been temporarily blinded until "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (rapture of Body of Christ) vs 25, and then "all Israel shall be saved; as it is written..." vs 26. After the rapture of the Church, the Blody of Christ, the dispensation of Grace will have ended and the dispensation of the Law will resume and the gospel of the kingdom will again be preached, "before the end come."

The "good news" of the gospel today is not "the kingdom is at hand" but salvation by "grace through faith" in the cross work of Christ. The Law was nailed to the cross and works are no longer required.

I said all of the above to show that the rite of water baptism was connected to the nation of Israel only. We learn from Hebrews 7 & 8 that the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood, with its washings (baptisms), was done away with. Christ is now our high priest after the order of Meschisedec, a Gentile priest. There is no water connected to that priesthood. Not once in Paul's Epistles does he require water baptism. Yes he did baptize a few but that was before he received the full knowlsedge of "the mystery."

Today according to Eph 4:5 there is only "one baptism." It is the baptism of 1Cor12:13 "For by one Spirit (Holy Spirit) are we all baptized into one body...." the Body of Christ (dry cleaned).`

I can see no reason or commandment for the water rite of baptism for the Body of Christ today. Yes it was a requirement under "the gospel of the kingdom."

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord.

[Dispy]

PART 2
In addition to the above:

From the book "Common Questions About the Grace Messate" by Joel Finck.

9) WHY DON'T WE WATER BAPTIZE?

Nowhere in Paul’s epistles do you ever find instructions for us to be water baptized. Many recognize that Paul was given revelation from the Lord and that in fact, he writes directly to the churches and the church leaders, Timothy and Titus and to the saints of the Body of Christ. Yet, does it not strike you as a little strange that if we are supposed to be water baptizing that Paul never tells us to do it. He never tells us how it is supposed to be done, how it should be carried out, who should be doing it, etc.

Why is this? True Christianity is a faith which involves an inward reality, not outward ritual. And yet even as we write this, the vast majority of Christendom, has reverted back to the rituals of the Law and the Jewish Kingdom program.

Israel was a sign nation. God revealed to the Jewish people many outward shows of their faith. These involved sacrifices, water rituals and ceremonial washings, certain meats and drinks, observance of days, etc. All of these being designed to teach certain truths to the nation Israel. As one examines God’s spiritual program for this dispensation, however, as it is revealed to the Apostle of the Gentiles, the Apostle Paul, it soon becomes evident that these outward, visible manifestations of Israel’s religion, do not belong to the Church the Body of Christ. Indeed, they have no place in the practice of our faith in this dispensation. Amazingly, many churches would agree. They would say, of course, we do not observe those Jewish rituals. We have instead our own Christian rituals that we do! Many fail to realize that the so-called Christian ordinances and rituals actually can be traced back to the Jewish program for the nation Israel.

I Corinthians 1:17 says, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” Water baptism is not a part of Paul’s commission. Later on we will discuss the Great Commission. One of the reasons many people teach that we should be water baptized is because it is a part of the Great Commission given to the Twelve Apostles. We will deal with that in depth later. But what we need to see here is the Apostle Peter and the other Eleven Apostles could not have said what Paul says here in I Corinthians 1, “Christ sent me not to baptize.” Peter would have been telling a lie if he had said this, because Christ did send him to baptize. “Go ye therefore, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Paul was not operating under the commission given to the Twelve Apostles, and neither are we. That Commission was a Kingdom Commission.

Where did water baptism come from and who was the first person who practiced water baptism? Perhaps 99 out of 100 would answer, John the Baptist. He certainly
sounds like one who would be the first to baptize. His name is John the Baptist (or “baptizer”). Why was he called the baptizer? Was he doing something new? No, not at all. Hebrews 9:10 speaks of the “diverse washings” of the Old Testament tabernacle. In the Old Testament, every time you read of a washing at the door of the tabernacle, it is a “baptism”. For the word translated “washings” in Hebrews 9:10 is “baptizmos” or baptisms.

Baptisms did not begin with John the Baptist. He was just continuing that which had been practiced for hundreds of years.

Ephesians 4:3 says, “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body...”

This is the Body of Christ. Then, in verse 5, Paul continues, “There is One Lord, one faith, one baptism...” This verse has probably been more obscured by theologians than any verse in the Bible. It is not that they have never read it, but that they fail to grasp Paul’s point.

When we search the Scriptures we find that there are as many as twelve baptisms. Some of these are water baptisms of the Law, others are spiritual in nature. In Matthew 3:11, John the Baptist said, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.” Right here in this context we see three baptisms - water, Holy Spirit and fire.

Yet, Paul says there is one baptism! Did Paul not know the Scriptures? Of course he did, but Paul is speaking in the context of the Body of Christ and his conclusion is that while there are many baptisms in the Bible - twelve or more - only one of them pertains to us in this dispensation of the Grace of God. Which one do you suppose it is?

I Corinthians 12:12, 13 says, “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.”

Here is a spiritual baptism. This baptism has no water whatsoever. It is performed by the Holy Spirit of God. It happens the moment you believe the gospel of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. The Holy Spirit supernaturally baptizes you into the Body of Christ.

Another translation of the word “baptize” is the word “identify”, because that is what happens when we are saved. We become identified with Christ. What three things did we believe in order to be saved? His death, His burial and His resurrection. What three things are we identified with when we trust him? His death, His burial and His resurrection.

This is what Paul is speaking of in Romans 6. Many a fundamentalist preacher is very adamant that this is not a water baptism. And yet, it seems as though by the time they dance all around the subject of baptism, they finally managed to squeeze a few drops of water out of Romans 6. Why is this? It is an attempt to prove a point which cannot be proven from Scripture. Romans 6:3, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ...” When you believed the gospel the Holy Spirit identified you with Christ. What happened then? “...as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” You became identified with the death of Christ. What is so important about that? The Scripture says, “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Furthermore it says, “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). That is spiritual death as well as physical death. Because we are sinful, we must die. We must pay the penalty of sin with our life. But this is what the gospel is all about. Christ came and paid the penalty of sin by dying for us. Therefore, when you believe the gospel, you are baptized or identified with Jesus Christ, and therefore you are baptized into His death. This means you no longer must die spiritually for your sins, because His death is accounted to you. It now belongs to you. And you, therefore, have eternal life. This is the gospel message.

But not only are we identified with His death, verse 4 says, “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.” This is the verse where many get the idea
that believers should be dunked under water. They assume that since we are buried, we should, therefore, be put in a “watery grave.” But this not only misses the point, it actually totally destroys the meaning that Paul is trying to show. He is not saying you were buried in water. He says you were buried with Christ. His burial becomes your burial by virtue of your baptism into His death. Paul is building on that truth now. Not only are you identified with His death (you no longer have to die for your sins), but you are buried with Him as well.

What is the importance of the burial of Christ? First, it shows Christ really died. You do not bury people who are not dead. He was truly dead and therefore, He was
buried. But it also pictures the putting away of sin. When Christ rose from that grave, our sins stayed buried. This is the imagery that God wants us to see. The fact that we are identified with His death relieves us from having to die for our sins. The fact that we are buried with Him means that those sins are done away with, and finally, weare identified with His resurrection, because of spiritual baptism!

Finally, verse 4 goes on to say, “...that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
Because of our identification with Christ, we now have the spiritual equipment by the Holy Spirit to live the Christian life. This is what spiritual baptism is all about.
Why would we trade all this for a water ceremony?

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

[Dispy]

PART 3

10) WHY WAS JESUS BAPTIZED?

Why was Christ baptized? Most assume that if He did it, surely we should do it, too. Let us consider why Christ was baptized in His own words. John the Baptist had this same question on his mind when Christ came to be baptized of him. John said, “Why are you coming to be baptized by me? I need to be baptized by you!” Why
would John have said that? Because at that time, water baptism was associated with cleansing from sin (see Mark 1:4). John knew that Christ had no sin, so he is wondering why Christ would need to be baptized. Notice the Lord’s answer: Matthew 3:13-15, “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, ‘Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.’ Then he suffered him.”

What did the Lord mean when He said “it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness”? Why did Christ come to the nation of Israel? Did He come to destroy the Law with its ordinances or to do away with the prophets? Christ Himself said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matthew 5:17). The Lord Jesus Christ, the perfect Son of God, came to identify with the human race and in particular with the nation of Israel. In doing so, He submitted Himself to all of the laws of the nation of Israel, including the water washings or baptisms. In order to identify with sinners, even though He was sinless, He
partook of this water washing which symbolized a cleansing for the nation of Israel. He came and partook of the same so He would become one with them. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that water baptism was required for the priestly tribe when they were initiated into the priesthood (Exodus 40:12). Priests were to enter the ministry at thirty years of age, which is exactly how old Christ was when He entered His earthly ministry and became water baptized according to the Law of Moses. We are not under the Law today. The Lord Jesus Christ was circumcised on the eighth day in the temple, He worshipped at the temple, and He partook of the Jewish feasts. Are we to do all of those things today? Of course not. We are not under the law, therefore, we are not subject to the water washings of the Old Testament law.

Another verse which shows why Jesus was baptized is John 1:29-31, “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.” John’s baptism was to manifest Christ to Israel. How would the baptism of Christ reveal Him to Israel? God had told John to watch for the Spirit to descend like a dove. As he baptized, the One on whom the Spirit descended and remained, would be identified as the Messiah. “And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost” (John 1:33).

11) IF WATER BAPTISM WAS A PART OF THE JEWISH LAW, AND IF IT'S REALLY NOT INTENDED FOR US, AND IF GOD HAS GIVEN US A SPIRITUAL BAPTISM, WHY DID PAUL BAPTIZE?

Why did Paul baptize? I Corinthians 13:12 gives us a principle which will help us to understand why Paul baptized with water in his early ministry. “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part.” What is Paul talking about? When he wrote I Corinthians, he had only received a small portion of the full revelation that would eventually be given to him. There came a time when God did reveal the fullness of the mystery to the Apostle Paul. But when he wrote I Corinthians, he said he only knew in part. This explains why Paul continued a Jewish practice as long as he did.

We can pinpoint when Paul stopped baptizing according to Scriptures. In Acts 18 at Corinth, Paul water baptized. He refers to this in I Corinthians 1:14-16, “I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.”

Paul had gotten a revelation concerning water baptism between Acts 18 and when he wrote I Corinthians. This is a space of about two years. We can pinpoint that
during that two year period Paul received further revelation that water baptism was not a part of his commission for this Dispensation of Grace. This is what we call progressive revelation. By the time he wrote I Corinthians, Paul could confidently state, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (I Corinthians 1:17). God did not give the whole program to Paul all at one time. He progressively revealed it. And Paul did what any of us would do if we wanted to be faithful to the Lord. As we learn, we change. We practice what we know to practice until we learn otherwise. And when Paul learned that water baptism was not a part of this dispensation, there is not one more instance of Paul baptizing anyone after that time.

12) WHAT HARM IS THERE IN WATER BAPTISM?

Many recognize and understand that water baptism does not save us. They understand that we are not under the law. But really, what harm is there in going through this little ceremony? The most obvious danger is trusting in baptism rather than trusting in Christ. There are many churches today which teach salvation by baptism. We call this doctrine “Baptismal Regeneration”. Major denominations teach that the way to be saved is to be baptized with water. Why is this dangerous? Many young people are baptized with water as a child and as they grow, they are taught this took away their original sin. Or they are taught that this baptism places them into the Kingdom of God. This is tragic and it flies in the face of what Paul taught. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8, 9).

Many evangelical, fundamental churches do not teach salvation by baptism, but they will not allow you to be a member of their church unless you have been baptized. God will accept you, but they will not. Some will “sort of” accept you, but you are not considered to be in the will of God if you do not do it.

Others would say baptism is just an outward sign of an inward reality, and that being dunked in water pictures what we believe. We believe we have been buried with Christ. We believe we have been raised again and baptism is said to be a ceremony to show this. But we should ask “Why?” Where does the word of God ever tell us that baptism is to show someone you are saved? The fact is it doesn’t. Many point to Romans 6, which is not referring to water baptism at all (see question #9).

The harm, aside from the danger of clinging to baptism as your point of salvation, is the shadow water baptism casts on the message of the gospel. Colossians 2:8 says, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

Paul says to “beware”. Some would try to strip something from you, steal something from you. This is what is meant by the word “spoil”. But what is it they want to steal from us? Verse 9 says, “For in him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” And in verse 10, “And ye are complete in him.” We are complete in Him! What can you add to that? Baptism? A water washing? A ceremony? We are complete in Him. What does this say if we say we are saved, but yet there is a next step, if you want to really have everything - be baptized. What is that saying about your salvation? It is saying that something is missing. But Paul wrote that we are complete IN HIM! The Jew would ask, “Don’t I need to be circumcised?” Verse 11 answers, “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands. In putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.” Many today would ask, “Don’t we need to be baptized?”

Verse 12 answers, “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” Paul’s message is that you do not need to be circumcised, you do not need to be baptized, because you already are! You are complete in Christ. You already have these things. To go back and do them for a religious purpose casts a reflection on the finished work of Christ. It is as though you are saying you really do not believe that what Christ did was quite good enough, and that it set me in perfectly good standing with God, so you are going to add just a little bit more to it. Water baptism casts a reflection on the finished work of Christ, and this is why it is dangerous!

Paul goes on to illustrate it in verse 14, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us.” Baptism was an ordinance. Many churches will tell you
there are ordinances for today. Scripture says there are not. They have been blotted out. Verse 16 says, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [the substance, the real thing] is of Christ.”

Baptism was a shadow - Christ is the real thing. Which would you rather have? Paul says in Christ you already have the real thing. Do not go back to the shadow. Do not go back to that which has no substance. Glory in Christ. He is the real thing! If you told your son to carry out the trash and told your daughter to do the dishes, would they be considered obedient children if your son would do the dishes and your daughter would carry out the trash? No, we might commend them for doing something, but they really could not be obedient if they did not do what you told them to do. In the final analysis, we would have to conclude they were unfaithful servants. This is a simple illustration and yet in essence, it describes what the church has been doing or trying to do for the last 2,000 years. By and large, the church has been trying to carry out the final instructions of our Lord to the Twelve Apostles, often known as the Great Commission. One of the common questions which arises when we talk about the unique and distinctive message committed to the Apostle Paul is the question:

Question 13. AREN'T WE SUPPOSED TO BE CARRYING OUT THE GREAT COMMISSION: (SNIP)

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord.

[daverain]

My two cents:
--------------

Believe upon Christ (and His sacrifice)...

and you -ARE- 'baptised into Jesus '.

Peace in Christ.

[Dispy]

My two cents:
--------------

Believe upon Christ (and His sacrifice)...

and you -ARE- 'baptised into Jesus '.

Peace in Christ.

AMEN - dry-cleaned.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

[gtsecc]

What do you make of writings by apostles with instructions on how to do water Baptism, such as the Didache?

[Dispy]

What do you make of writings by apostles with instructions on how to do water Baptism, such as the Didache?

What instructions and by whom are you referring to.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

[gtsecc]

What instructions and by whom are you referring to.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

Well, the Bible contains certain writings, BUT not all writings that are know to be true. The Didache WAS considered part of the Bible for some folks, but it was ultimately not included at the Council of Hippo. Nonetheless, we know 1st and 2nd century Christians quote from it.

Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering all of these things, baptize "into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy Spirit" in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. Now if you are not able to do so in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don't have either, pour water three times on the head, "into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit." Now before the ritual cleansing, the baptizer and the one being baptized should fast, and any others who are able. Now you will give word for the one who is being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.

Since that is not in the Bible, do you have to ignore it? Can you use it? It was written around 50 AD by the remaining Disciples.

[gtsecc]

Baptism:

Infant baptism is not scriptural and was actually created in the 1400 or 1500 hundreds by the catholic church.


I suppose I am not allowed to debate here, but I don't see what is wrong with clearing up historical facts and dates.

Eastern Orthodox do infant Baptism and split around 1054.
Oriental Orthodox do infant Baptism and split after Chalcedon - 5th century.
The idea of Adult baptism was from the Anabaptist in 1521 in France.

[Dispy]

Well, the Bible contains certain writings, BUT not all writings that are know to be true. The Didache WAS considered part of the Bible for some folks, but it was ultimately not included at the Council of Hippo. Nonetheless, we know 1st and 2nd century Christians quote from it.

Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering all of these things, baptize "into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy Spirit" in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. Now if you are not able to do so in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don't have either, pour water three times on the head, "into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit." Now before the ritual cleansing, the baptizer and the one being baptized should fast, and any others who are able. Now you will give word for the one who is being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.

Since that is not in the Bible, do you have to ignore it? Can you use it? It was written around 50 AD by the remaining Disciples.

It is my firm belief that the entire Bible is written by men inspired by God. Therefore, I take it all as God's word to us.

I find no reference in the Bible that members of "the Body of Christ" need to undergo the water rite of baptism. It is also my firm firm belief that the "one baptism" of Ephesians 4:5 is the baptism of 1Cor.12:13. It is the Spirit's baptism (dry-cleaning) into the Body of Christ at the moment the moment one puts their faith and trust in the Cross work of Christ for their salvation.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

[- DRA -]

I find no reference in the Bible that members of "the Body of Christ" need to undergo the water rite of baptism. It is also my firm firm belief that the "one baptism" of Ephesians 4:5 is the baptism of 1Cor.12:13. It is the Spirit's baptism (dry-cleaning) into the Body of Christ at the moment the moment one puts their faith and trust in the Cross work of Christ for their salvation.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

The Jews on Pentecost that believed the preaching of the apostle Peter asked what they should do when they were convicted of killing Jesus -- who Peter declared to be both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). Peter's response was for them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (verse 38). Three thousand Jews obeyed this command (verse 41), and were added to the church by the Lord (verse 47). What was the Spirit's role in this process (1 Cor. 12:13)? Ask yourself who was directing the words of the apostle Peter when he delivered the sermon in Acts chapter 2 and told those Jews who accepted the message what to do to have their sins taken away (verse 38). Wasn't it the Holy Spirit, who came upon the apostles in Acts 2:1-4, just as the Lord promised them in John 16:7-14?

The baptism commanded in Acts 2:38 was "in the name of Jesus Christ." Compare this to the baptism "in the name of the Lord" in Acts 10:47-48 that was clearly identified as being in water. Thus, by harmonizing the two passages, we conclude that the baptism in the name of the Lord (same as in the name of Jesus Christ) was for the remission of sins and was in water. This also harmonizes with Acts 8:35-39. Philip "preached Jesus." In response to this preaching, the eunuch desired to be baptized in water. These examples of conversions early in the book of Acts clearly show that the apostles and first-century Christians were busy carrying the gospel to the world just as Jesus commanded them (see Mark 16:15-16).

[WesWoodell]

I find no reference in the Bible that members of "the Body of Christ" need to undergo the water rite of baptism. It is also my firm firm belief that the "one baptism" of Ephesians 4:5 is the baptism of 1Cor.12:13. It is the Spirit's baptism (dry-cleaning) into the Body of Christ at the moment the moment one puts their faith and trust in the Cross work of Christ for their salvation.


Is that in the Bible?

[gtsecc]

So, if the Didache say you have to use water - you would reject it as spurious?

[- DRA -]

In the event that you did not read what I posted in "Babies and Baptism, I will repost it. It presents my views.

To thouroughly understand the meaning of water baptism, we must look at the history and purpose of the water rite and see if it still applies today in the dispensation of Grace.

In Genesis 12:1-3, the promise to Abram was that the nations would be blessed through his seed (Isreal).

In Exodus 19, 3-6 God told Moses to tell the children of Israel that if they would obey His voice and keep His covenant, then they would be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

In Exodus 29:1-4 We have the establishment of the priesthood and the washing with water (baptism) was a requirement.

In 2Samuel7:13-16 we have the promise of an everlasting kingdom and throne.

In Matthew 3:1-2 we find John the Baptist preaching repentance and baptism and proclaiming that kingdom at hand (about to be set up).

(The dispensation of the Law was still in effect at this time and works were required to demonstrate faith. Therefore, salvation required believing, repenting and baptism. Baptism was the vehicle (work) that demonstrated faith. Further, I do believe that the water signified that one baptized became a member of "that nation of priests.")

In Matthew 3:11 John says the the One (Jesus) that was to follow him would baptize them with the Holy Ghost and with fire. The Holy Ghost baptism by Jesus did not require water. That could be accomplished by the laying on of hands as Acts 8:14-17 and 19-1-6 shows. However, those that did believe and were baptized in water at Pentecost did receive the Holy Ghost because they did as commanded in Acts 2:38.

In Matthew 4:23 we find Jesus preaching "the gospel of the kingdom"

In Matthew 10:5-7 we find Jesus COMMANDING His disciples to preach "the kingdom at hand" (about to be set up) to the Jews only.

Why to the Jews only? Because it was prophesied in Isaiah 42:6 that they were to be "for a light unto the Gentiles." Wasn't Abram promised that the nations (Gentiles) would be blessed through his seed (Israel) and didn't God tell Moses that if they kept the covenants of God that they would be "a nation of priests."

After the crucifiction of Christ Jesus gave the 11, the "so called" great commission. According to Luke 24:47, they were to begin at Jerusalem. Why? Because that is where Moses's seat was and the scribes and Pharisees sat in it, Mat23:2,3. How else could the nation of Israel be "a light unto the Gentiles" unless the leaders and children of Israel became that "nation of priest" by accepting their long promised Messiah. I doubt if the 12 could have done it all by themselves in their lifetime.

How did the leaders respond?. Well first they rejected God the Father when they refused to be baptizsed of John and ALLOWED him to be killed. Then they rejected God the Son when they DEMANNDED that Jesus be Crucified. Even after Peter gave them a second opportunity for Jesus and His kingdom to return (Acts 3:14-21) they rejected the Holy Ghost by KILLING (stoning) Stephen.

Now that the Jews, as a nation, rejected the Trinity, How could they be that "nation of priests" and a "light unto the Gentiles?" How could that "everlasting kingdom" be set up when they rejected the King. How could all the OT promises made to the Jewish fathers be fulfilled? They can't as long as the Jews do not recognize their King. The Jews, as a nation, do not recognize Jesus as their long promised Messiah, even to this day.

How is the "good news" of "the gospel of the kingdom" through the "so called" great commission going to now go to the nations now? Didn't the 12, that were commissioned to go to the nations, agree with Paul that he should go to the heathen (Gentiles) and that they would stay with the "circumcision" (Jews)? Are the 12 now out of the will of God? Wasn't Paul raised up to go to the Gentiles, kings and children of Israel? Why was there a need for Paul to be raised up to go the the entire world alone when there were already 12 commissioned to do so? Did Paul go about preaching "the gospel of the kingdom" (Law) and that "the kingdom at hand?" No!!! He never once offered the kingdom and the gospel he preached was "the gospel of the grace of God." Aren't Grace and Law opposite doctrines? He never once preached "repent and be baptize" as Peter did.

We learn from Romans 11:7-12, that Israel as been temporarily blinded until "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (rapture of Body of Christ) vs 25, and then "all Israel shall be saved; as it is written..." vs 26. After the rapture of the Church, the Blody of Christ, the dispensation of Grace will have ended and the dispensation of the Law will resume and the gospel of the kingdom will again be preached, "before the end come."

The "good news" of the gospel today is not "the kingdom is at hand" but salvation by "grace through faith" in the cross work of Christ. The Law was nailed to the cross and works are no longer required.

I said all of the above to show that the rite of water baptism was connected to the nation of Israel only. We learn from Hebrews 7 & 8 that the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood, with its washings (baptisms), was done away with. Christ is now our high priest after the order of Meschisedec, a Gentile priest. There is no water connected to that priesthood. Not once in Paul's Epistles does he require water baptism. Yes he did baptize a few but that was before he received the full knowlsedge of "the mystery."

Today according to Eph 4:5 there is only "one baptism." It is the baptism of 1Cor12:13 "For by one Spirit (Holy Spirit) are we all baptized into one body...." the Body of Christ (dry cleaned).`

I can see no reason or commandment for the water rite of baptism for the Body of Christ today. Yes it was a requirement under "the gospel of the kingdom."

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord.

To start off, thanks for posting Scripture to show how you determined what you believe to be the truth. Not many people are willing or able to do this today. This is commendable. However, we must be careful in our studies to ensure that we determine truth. We should be like the Bereans, and study the Scriptures to make sure the things we hear and believe are in harmony with God’s word. I am confident that we would agree that this is necessary. Consequently, I would like to review your message and discuss “problems” I see with your understanding of the issues before us.

First off, I do not believe the seed or blessing from Abraham promised in Gen. 12:1-3 was the nation of Israel. This is a reference to Jesus (see Acts 3:20-26; Matthew 1:1). He was the light to the Gentiles discussed in first few verses of Isaiah chapter 42.

Second, I believe that you misunderstand the kingdom. Consider. Both John and Jesus began preaching that the kingdom was “at hand” (close) e.g. Matt. 3:2; Mark 1:15). Jesus even prophesied that some of the disciples there would not die before the kingdom was set up (Mark 9:1). True to the Lord’s word, the kingdom was established in the first-century – within the lifetime of those who heard Jesus’ promise (see Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9). I point this out because your reasoning leaves me with the distinct impression you are still waiting for the kingdom. Why wait? It is already here, and has been for about 2,000 years.

Third, the law of Moses included many washings (note Heb. 6:1). However, it wasn’t any of these that John preached to prepare the way for the Lord. John preached a baptism of repentance (Matt. 3:11). He was preparing the people to receive the Lord (Malachi 3:1a). They did this by repenting of their sins. Later, the Jews that accepted that Jesus was the Messiah (the Christ) were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (by His authority – not John’s) in Acts 2:38 to have their sins taken away by being united with Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (see Romans 6:3-11). This is the baptism that Jesus authorized the apostles to preach i.e. Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16.

Fourth, there are only two instances in the New Testament where Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit – the apostles in Acts chapter 2 and the Gentiles in Acts chapter 10. In both instances, it was clearly evident what occurred i.e. speaking in tongues. In addition to this, a measure of the Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of the apostle’s hands (Acts 8:17-18; 19:6). Have you considered why the Holy Spirit was promised to the apostles (see John 16:7-14)? We now have all truth i.e. 2 Tim. 3:16-17; James 1:25; 2 Pet. 1:3; Jude 3). What more do we need? We now have God’s complete word (delivered with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) that gives all we need to please and serve the Lord.

[Dispy]

I find no reference in the Bible that members of "the Body of Christ" need to undergo the water rite of baptism. It is also my firm firm belief that the "one baptism" of Ephesians 4:5 is the baptism of 1Cor.12:13. It is the Spirit's baptism (dry-cleaning) into the Body of Christ at the moment the moment one puts their faith and trust in the Cross work of Christ for their salvation."

The Jews on Pentecost that believed the preaching of the apostle Peter asked what they should do when they were convicted of killing Jesus -- who Peter declared to be both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). Peter's response was for them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (verse 38). Three thousand Jews obeyed this command (verse 41), and were added to the church by the Lord (verse 47). What was the Spirit's role in this process (1 Cor. 12:13)? Ask yourself who was directing the words of the apostle Peter when he delivered the sermon in Acts chapter 2 and told those Jews who accepted the message what to do to have their sins taken away (verse 38). Wasn't it the Holy Spirit, who came upon the apostles in Acts 2:1-4, just as the Lord promised them in John 16:7-14?

The baptism commanded in Acts 2:38 was "in the name of Jesus Christ." Compare this to the baptism "in the name of the Lord" in Acts 10:47-48 that was clearly identified as being in water. Thus, by harmonizing the two passages, we conclude that the baptism in the name of the Lord (same as in the name of Jesus Christ) was for the remission of sins and was in water. This also harmonizes with Acts 8:35-39. Philip "preached Jesus." In response to this preaching, the eunuch desired to be baptized in water. These examples of conversions early in the book of Acts clearly show that the apostles and first-century Christians were busy carrying the gospel to the world just as Jesus commanded them (see Mark 16:15-16).

I totally agree with you that those at Pentecost heard what Peter preached were baptized, received the Holy Ghost, and added to the Church. However, Jesus was the baptizer with the Holy Ghost (Matthew 3:11).

The disciples of Jesus were given the Holy Ghost prior to Pentecost but not the power (Luke 20:22). Jesus in Luke 24:49 said "...but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from high. So their power of the Holy Gost came in fulfillment of promise.

Yes, at Pentecost water baptism was still in effect, and those that repented and were baptized did recieve the power of the Holy Ghost and added to the Jewish church, not the Body of Christ, which was still future revelation.

The Body of Christ, the Church for today, was not made until after the nation of Israel was set aside after the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7.

(Now keep in mind that prior to the setting aside of Israel, for one that was a Gentile to serve the true and living God, that one had to become a Jew (proselyte) and place themselves under the Civil, Moral and Ceremonial Laws of Moses.)

In Acts 8 we find that Ethiopian was saved and baptized in water. Why? Because the kingdom program with its water baptism was still in effect. But, you will notice that he (the Etheopian) did believe and was then bapized. He then became a Jewish Proselyte.

It was in Acts 10 that Peter first learned that the Gentiles were no longer to be considered "unclean." That meant that the Jew and Gentiles were now on equal footing and without distinction. Did that bring the Gentiles up to the same level at the Jews? NO! It put the Jews on the same level as the Gentiles who were set aside back in Genesis 11 at the Tower of Babel.

Romans 11:32 "For God hath concluded them ALL (Jews and Gentiles) in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all."

You will notice that in Acts 10;44 that all those that were with Cornelius were filled with the Holy Ghost PRIOR to being water baptized. They were not required to repent and be baptized prior to receiving the Holy Ghost as in Acts 2:38. That is why those of the cirucmcision were so astonished. So you see; changes were taking place. Water baptism was still in the program at that time. There was no command that they had to be baptized.

When we get to the Spirit baptism of 1Cor.12:13, it is not Jesus that is the Baptizer as in Acts 2. It is NOW the Holy Spirit that is the Baptizer. It is not for the remission of sins and receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost, but it is for entrance into The Body of Chris, the Chruch for today.

When Jesus was upon the earth, He preached, and commanded his disciples to preach "the gospel of the kingdom"/"the kingdom at hand; which had to do with the fulfillment of prophesy. It was to be carried out via the "so called" great commission.

Being Israel rejected their King and His Kingdom, there was no way that that commission could be carried out. Therefore, God set the nation of Israel aside and raised up Saul/Paul to usher in the dispensation of Grace. Not if fulfillment of prophesy, but with the "revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began."

The "gospel of the kingdom" was preached with the Law in effect. The "gospel of the grace of God," which Paul preached, was preached and the Law no longer in effect. Even though Paul did water baptize some, he NEVER anyone to be water baptized. Please read my posts PART 2 and 3. They will explain why.

James, Cephas (Peter) and John recognized that their commission could not be carried out, and in Galatians 2:9 agreed with Paul that they would stay with the circumcision (Jews) while he should go to the Gentiles.

One should never read future revelation into past events. That would be like reading the Laws of Moses into the Garden of Eden or reading the battles of WWI into the battles of WW2. Therefore one should never read the revelatons to Paul into the Gospels and the 1st 7 chapters of Acrts. The gospels, and early Acts, have to do with the nation of Israel under the Law. The revelations to Paul are after Israel and the Law are set aside, and have to do with salvation by Grace through FAITH ALONE based upon the Cross work of Christ according to the revelation of the mystery revealed to Paul.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

[Dispy]

Is that in the Bible?

YES.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord.

[constance]

To the original poster -

Disciples of Christ congregations accept infant baptism from another church as valid for church membership, although we perform believer's baptism.

However, if you feel strongly led to be baptized, you should speak to your pastor - it is not at all uncommon for a convert to desire baptism.

Constance

[Dispy]

To start off, thanks for posting Scripture to show how you determined what you believe to be the truth. Not many people are willing or able to do this today. This is commendable. However, we must be careful in our studies to ensure that we determine truth. We should be like the Bereans, and study the Scriptures to make sure the things we hear and believe are in harmony with God’s word. I am confident that we would agree that this is necessary. Consequently, I would like to review your message and discuss “problems” I see with your understanding of the issues before us.

THANK YOU for your kind remarks.

Every effort on my part is made to ensure that what I believe is based on "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" (2Tim.2:15).

First off, I do not believe the seed or blessing from Abraham promised in Gen. 12:1-3 was the nation of Israel. This is a reference to Jesus (see Acts 3:20-26; Matthew 1:1). He was the light to the Gentiles discussed in first few verses of Isaiah chapter 42.

I will agree that in Genesis 12:1-3 is also referring ti Jesus. However, the physical seed of Abraham is the nation of Israel. Isaac was of the seed of Abraham and his name was changed to Israel. "Genesis 12:21: "...for in Isaac shall they seed becalled."

Isaiah 59:20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion (Jerusalem), and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord.
21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in they moutn, shall not depart of of they mouth, not out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and forever.

60:1 Arise, shine: for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.
2 For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.
3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and the kings to the brightness of thy rising.

The above prophesy will be fulfilled when Israel will recognizes their Messiah at His 2nd coming. However, it would have happen when Jesus was upon the earth and Israel, had Israel accepted Jesus as there Messiah. But they rejected their King and His Kingdom. Also, had Israel repended in Acts 3:19-20, Jesus would have returned and established His Kingdom.


Second, I believe that you misunderstand the kingdom. Consider. Both John and Jesus began preaching that the kingdom was “at hand” (close) e.g. Matt. 3:2; Mark 1:15). Jesus even prophesied that some of the disciples there would not die before the kingdom was set up (Mark 9:1). True to the Lord’s word, the kingdom was established in the first-century – within the lifetime of those who heard Jesus’ promise (see Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9). I point this out because your reasoning leaves me with the distinct impression you are still waiting for the kingdom. Why wait? It is already here, and has been for about 2,000 years.

Yes, both John and Jesus preached "the kingdom at hand." According to OT prophesy ist was the time for that to happen. The King was born in Jerusalem, but His subjects cried "crucify Him." When Peter, at Pentecost, in Acts 3:19:20 told his listeners what they had to do in order for Jesus to return, they, as a nation didnot repent. Therefore, the kingdom program with its preaching of "the gospel of the kingdom" was interrupted and God raised up Saul/Paul to usher in "the dispensation of the grace of God" according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began.

I fail to see how we can be living in the kingdom age today because I don't see the restoration of all things. Further, the kingdom is to last 1,000 years and you claim it has been for about 2,000 years now.

Third, the law of Moses included many washings (note Heb. 6:1). However, it wasn’t any of these that John preached to prepare the way for the Lord. John preached a baptism of repentance (Matt. 3:11). He was preparing the people to receive the Lord (Malachi 3:1a). They did this by repenting of their sins. Later, the Jews that accepted that Jesus was the Messiah (the Christ) were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (by His authority – not John’s) in Acts 2:38 to have their sins taken away by being united with Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (see Romans 6:3-11). This is the baptism that Jesus authorized the apostles to preach i.e. Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16.

I find no water in the baptism of Romans 6:3-11. Please explain to me how the baptism of Romans 6:3-11 be the baptism that Jesus authorized the apostles to preach in Matt. 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15-26 when it was still part of the mystery that was kept secret, since the world began? The purpose of the Cross was unknown prior to the raising up of the Apostle Paul. Even Peter at Pentecost preached the cross as something to be repented of.

There are at least 12 different baptisms mention in the Bible. 2 are real (no water ceremony), 5 are figurative (no water ceremony) and 5 are ritual (water ceremony). Today there is one baptism (Eph.4:5) in effect and it is the Spirit (Holy) baptism of 1Cor.12.13.

Fourth, there are only two instances in the New Testament where Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit – the apostles in Acts chapter 2 and the Gentiles in Acts chapter 10. In both instances, it was clearly evident what occurred i.e. speaking in tongues. In addition to this, a measure of the Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of the apostle’s hands (Acts 8:17-18; 19:6). Have you considered why the Holy Spirit was promised to the apostles (see John 16:7-14)? We now have all truth i.e. 2 Tim. 3:16-17; James 1:25; 2 Pet. 1:3; Jude 3). What more do we need? We now have God’s complete word (delivered with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) that gives all we need to please and serve the Lord.

The disciples received the Holy Ghost in John 20:21. However, they did not receive the power until Pentecost. Jesus told them in Luke 24:49 to wait in Jerusalem "until ye be endued with power from on high."

The purpose of the Holy Ghost power was because Israel was "a sign nation." Isreal always required a sign and God alway gave them one. Signs were proof that it was from God. Those a Pentecost were given the Holy Ghost to bring all Israel back under one roof (so to speak), and then to be that "nation of priests" which would be a blessing to the famlies of the earth (nations), as promised Abram back in Genesis 12:1-3.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

[Stinker]

I find no water in the baptism of Romans 6:3-11. [Dispy #35]

Even if you do not understand Rom.6:3-11 to be speaking of water baptism, it still means the same as you understand it Dispy.

It is a physical representation of what happened to all believers, as what 1Cor.12:13 teaches.

[gtsecc]

If scripture seems to support 2 views, then can you use the didache as a tie breaker?

[MbiaJc]

Stinker

Hi Stinker:


Before one is water baptized, they must first have been spiritually 'born-again' according to Jn.3:3-8


No! I think you misunderstand that scripture for Peter says,

Act 2:38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

What Peter is saying is be baptized(water baptism) in Jesus name for the forgivness of sin and you shall be baptized by the Holy Spirit(born again\ quickened\ made alive).

Johns deciples had been baptized for the remission of sin , but not in Jesus name and did not recieve the Holy Spirit till the Apostles laid hands on them.

[Dispy]

I find no water in the baptism of Romans 6:3-11. [Dispy #35]

Even if you do not understand Rom.6:3-11 to be speaking of water baptism, it still means the same as you understand it Dispy.

It is a physical representation of what happened to all believers, as what 1Cor.12:13 teaches.

Chapter and verse for your last sentence please.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord.

[Dispy]

Hi Stinker:



No! I think you misunderstand that scripture for Peter says,

Act 2:38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

What Peter is saying is be baptized(water baptism) in Jesus name for the forgivness of sin and you shall be baptized by the Holy Spirit(born again\ quickened\ made alive).

Johns deciples had been baptized for the remission of sin , but not in Jesus name and did not recieve the Holy Spirit till the Apostles laid hands on them.

In Acts 2:38 it is not the Holy Spirit that is the baptizer. It is Jesus who is the baptizer as John says in Matthew 3:11 "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier then I, ...:he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire."

Those believer in Acts 8:16 and Acts 19:2-6 were already baptized under John's baptism and didn't have to be re-baptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

[Stinker]

Chapter and verse for your last sentence please. [Dispy #39]


Even if you do not understand Rom.6:3-11 to be speaking of water baptism, it still means the same as you understand it Dispy.

It is a physical representation of what happened to all believers, as what 1Cor.12:13 teaches.

[Dispy]

Chapter and verse for your last sentence please. [Dispy #39]


Even if you do not understand Rom.6:3-11 to be speaking of water baptism, it still means the same as you understand it Dispy.

It is a physical representation of what happened to all believers, as what 1Cor.12:13 teaches.

I find nothing physical in Romans 6:3-11. THANK GOD verse 6 isn't physical.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

[- DRA -]

I totally agree with you that those at Pentecost heard what Peter preached were baptized, received the Holy Ghost, and added to the Church. However, Jesus was the baptizer with the Holy Ghost (Matthew 3:11).

The disciples of Jesus were given the Holy Ghost prior to Pentecost but not the power (Luke 20:22). Jesus in Luke 24:49 said "...but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from high. So their power of the Holy Gost came in fulfillment of promise.

Yes, at Pentecost water baptism was still in effect, and those that repented and were baptized did recieve the power of the Holy Ghost and added to the Jewish church, not the Body of Christ, which was still future revelation.

The Body of Christ, the Church for today, was not made until after the nation of Israel was set aside after the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7.

(Now keep in mind that prior to the setting aside of Israel, for one that was a Gentile to serve the true and living God, that one had to become a Jew (proselyte) and place themselves under the Civil, Moral and Ceremonial Laws of Moses.)

In Acts 8 we find that Ethiopian was saved and baptized in water. Why? Because the kingdom program with its water baptism was still in effect. But, you will notice that he (the Etheopian) did believe and was then bapized. He then became a Jewish Proselyte.

It was in Acts 10 that Peter first learned that the Gentiles were no longer to be considered "unclean." That meant that the Jew and Gentiles were now on equal footing and without distinction. Did that bring the Gentiles up to the same level at the Jews? NO! It put the Jews on the same level as the Gentiles who were set aside back in Genesis 11 at the Tower of Babel.

Romans 11:32 "For God hath concluded them ALL (Jews and Gentiles) in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all."

You will notice that in Acts 10;44 that all those that were with Cornelius were filled with the Holy Ghost PRIOR to being water baptized. They were not required to repent and be baptized prior to receiving the Holy Ghost as in Acts 2:38. That is why those of the cirucmcision were so astonished. So you see; changes were taking place. Water baptism was still in the program at that time. There was no command that they had to be baptized.

When we get to the Spirit baptism of 1Cor.12:13, it is not Jesus that is the Baptizer as in Acts 2. It is NOW the Holy Spirit that is the Baptizer. It is not for the remission of sins and receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost, but it is for entrance into The Body of Chris, the Chruch for today.

When Jesus was upon the earth, He preached, and commanded his disciples to preach "the gospel of the kingdom"/"the kingdom at hand; which had to do with the fulfillment of prophesy. It was to be carried out via the "so called" great commission.

Being Israel rejected their King and His Kingdom, there was no way that that commission could be carried out. Therefore, God set the nation of Israel aside and raised up Saul/Paul to usher in the dispensation of Grace. Not if fulfillment of prophesy, but with the "revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began."

The "gospel of the kingdom" was preached with the Law in effect. The "gospel of the grace of God," which Paul preached, was preached and the Law no longer in effect. Even though Paul did water baptize some, he NEVER anyone to be water baptized. Please read my posts PART 2 and 3. They will explain why.

James, Cephas (Peter) and John recognized that their commission could not be carried out, and in Galatians 2:9 agreed with Paul that they would stay with the circumcision (Jews) while he should go to the Gentiles.

One should never read future revelation into past events. That would be like reading the Laws of Moses into the Garden of Eden or reading the battles of WWI into the battles of WW2. Therefore one should never read the revelatons to Paul into the Gospels and the 1st 7 chapters of Acrts. The gospels, and early Acts, have to do with the nation of Israel under the Law. The revelations to Paul are after Israel and the Law are set aside, and have to do with salvation by Grace through FAITH ALONE based upon the Cross work of Christ according to the revelation of the mystery revealed to Paul.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

:wave:

Thanks for your response and the Scriptural references you provided. That gives us a basis to work from to seek a common understanding of baptism today. I understand better where you are coming from, but still do not agree with how you get to where you are. Consider . . .

The Holy Spirit came upon the apostles in Acts 2:1-4 . . . just as Jesus promised in John 16:7-14. For a totally different reason, the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles in Acts 10:47-48. Look at Peter’s conclusion in verse 47. He asks if anyone can forbid water. Why? Obviously, God had shown that He approved of the Gentiles having the gospel preached to them. They are candidates for baptism. So, like the Jews in Acts chapter 2, the Gentiles are COMMANDED to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:48). Acts 2:38 explained what resulted from this baptism -- the remission of sins.

Later, Peter explains these events to his Jewish brethren in Acts chapter 11. Acts 11:15-16 identifies the Holy Spirit coming upon the Gentiles as being the same as what occurred to the apostles in Acts 2:1-4 -- the baptism with the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus. Now, can you find any other place in the N.T. where this particular baptism occurs and is identified as being the baptism with the Holy Spirit? And, I need some Scriptural information about this baptism that the Holy Spirit is supposed to baptize with. Others I have studied with have explained 1 Cor. 12:13 as being the baptism with the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised, but you claim that it is a totally different baptism than this -- the one you say is “not for the remission of sins and [not to] receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost, but it is for entrance into The Body of Chris [sic], the Chruch [sic] for today.” Frankly, I only find in the Scriptures that Jesus promised to build one church (singular) -- not two churches -- in Matt. 16:18, and that He built the church in Acts chapter 2 when the Jews repented of their sins and were baptized to be saved (Acts 2:38,41,47). Especially note verse 47. Once one meets the terms of salvation one is added to the church. The church is identified as the body of Christ in Eph. 1:22-23, and Eph. 4:5 declares that there is one body (church). The Scriptures reveal that the one church is made up of individual Christians (1 Cor. 12:27) who live in different geographical regions e.g. the seven churches of Asia in Revelation chapters 2-3. In the plural sense, churches are referred to as the churches of Christ in Romans 16:16. To summarize my point, the church of Christ and the body of Christ are one in the same. The church is the (spiritual) body of Christ. And, if you study and carefully consider Ephesians chapters 2 through 4:6 you will find that this spiritual body is made up of both Gentiles and Jews.

As for the Ethiopian eunuch, I encourage you to consider his conversion from a different perspective. After Jesus was preached to him, the eunuch confessed his faith in the Lord and was baptized in water. This harmonizes with what Jesus said in Mark 16:16 – “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Frankly, I don’t understand how can say that belief and baptism made the eunuch a Jewish proselyte. Did you possibly overlook Acts 8:35? Philip “preached Jesus.” Somehow, you have concluded that Philip preached the need to be a proselyte to Judaism. The Scriptural evidence does not support this. In fact, considering that the eunuch was traveling to Jerusalem to worship (Acts 8:27) suggests that he was a Jew or a already a proselyte. Note the context. After worshipping in Jerusalem, the eunuch was returning. Then Philip met up with him and “preached Jesus.” In response to hearing Jesus preached -- not Judaism -- the eunuch desired to be baptized in water.

As for how Gentiles compare to Jews under the gospel of Christ, Romans 3:23, Gal. 3:28-29, and Ephesians 2:19 (fellow citizens) address this issue.

Two things I think you’ve overlooked:
1.) The kingdom was set up that Jesus promised (see Mark 9:1, Col. 1:13, and Rev. 1:9)
2.) The great commission was fulfilled (see Mark 16:15 and Col. 1:23)
Accepting what the Scriptures say about these things should help rethink your reasoning on Gal. 2:9. Paul is referring to the events after his conversion to Christ. Paul and Barnabas went on what is commonly called Paul’s first missionary journey to preach the gospel (see Acts chapters 13-14) while the apostles continued to labor among the Jews. This is what the passage is alluding to. The passage does NOT say what you say it says. You said, “James, Cephas (Peter) and John recognized that their commission could not be carried out,” but this is NOT what Gal. 2:9 says. Evidently, your misunderstanding of the apostles’ fulfillment of the great commission has allowed you the liberty to read something into the passage that simply is NOT there.

Your quote in the last paragraph of your post deserves some attention -- “The gospels, and early Acts, have to do with the nation of Israel under the Law.” Generally speaking, the Gospels occur while the law of Moses was in effect. However, Jesus nailed that law to His cross (Col. 2:14). It ended. Consider Heb. 9:15-17. Jesus’ covenant went into effect after His death. In fact, if you think of it in the terms that this passage uses, you can view Acts chapter 2 as the reading of Jesus’ will.

Bottom line. The kingdom was set up that was promised. The kingdom is the church. Both Jews and Gentiles make up the church. The apostles only taught one plan of salvation under the gospel of Christ. God has done what He promised He would do. Simple as that. And, if it is necessary for us to be united with Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection to die to sin, be freed from it, and become alive to God, then baptism is still necessary today (see Romans 6:3-11).

I have already read and considered parts 2 and 3 of your original post. I will respond as time allows.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

First off, I do not believe the seed or blessing from Abraham promised in Gen. 12:1-3 was the nation of Israel. This is a reference to Jesus (see Acts 3:20-26; Matthew 1:1). He was the light to the Gentiles discussed in first few verses of Isaiah chapter 42.

I will agree that in Genesis 12:1-3 is also referring ti Jesus. However, the physical seed of Abraham is the nation of Israel. Isaac was of the seed of Abraham and his name was changed to Israel. "Genesis 12:21: "...for in Isaac shall they seed becalled."

Isaiah 59:20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion (Jerusalem), and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord.
21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in they moutn, shall not depart of of they mouth, not out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and forever.

60:1 Arise, shine: for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.
2 For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.
3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and the kings to the brightness of thy rising.

The above prophesy will be fulfilled when Israel will recognizes their Messiah at His 2nd coming. However, it would have happen when Jesus was upon the earth and Israel, had Israel accepted Jesus as there Messiah. But they rejected their King and His Kingdom. Also, had Israel repended in Acts 3:19-20, Jesus would have returned and established His Kingdom.

Good. I'm glad that we both see Jesus as being the seed or blessing that Gen. 12:3 was referring to. I don't deny that Abraham's physical seed or ancestry came through Isaac, and Jacob, and then through his twelve sons. However, Acts 3:20-26 makes it clear that Jesus -- not the nation of Israel --
was the was seed or blessing. See also Gal. 3:14-16. Just wanted to make sure that we didn't miss this very important point. While in one sense the nation of Israel was the seed of Abraham, it was NOT the seed or blessing promised in Gen. 12:3.

I believe that Jesus set up the kingdom as prophesied of in passages like Isaiah 2:1-4 and Dan. 2:44. Jesus promised it would be in the lifetime of some of the disciples heard Him (Mark 9:1). It was set up (Col. 1:13). The apostle John was in it (Rev. 1:9).

How do you determine that Peter's sermon in Acts 3 was a pivotal point as far as the kingdom was established? Three thousand Jews had responded favorably to the gospel message preached in Acts 2. Look at Acts 4:4. The number of men has now grown to five thousand. Look also at Acts 5:14. Now, I fully realize that these numbers were only a small portion of the Jews, but some did accept and obey the Lord.

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Second, I believe that you misunderstand the kingdom. Consider. Both John and Jesus began preaching that the kingdom was “at hand” (close) e.g. Matt. 3:2; Mark 1:15). Jesus even prophesied that some of the disciples there would not die before the kingdom was set up (Mark 9:1). True to the Lord’s word, the kingdom was established in the first-century – within the lifetime of those who heard Jesus’ promise (see Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9). I point this out because your reasoning leaves me with the distinct impression you are still waiting for the kingdom. Why wait? It is already here, and has been for about 2,000 years.

Yes, both John and Jesus preached "the kingdom at hand." According to OT prophesy ist was the time for that to happen. The King was born in Jerusalem, but His subjects cried "crucify Him." When Peter, at Pentecost, in Acts 3:19:20 told his listeners what they had to do in order for Jesus to return, they, as a nation didnot repent. Therefore, the kingdom program with its preaching of "the gospel of the kingdom" was interrupted and God raised up Saul/Paul to usher in "the dispensation of the grace of God" according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began.

I fail to see how we can be living in the kingdom age today because I don't see the restoration of all things. Further, the kingdom is to last 1,000 years and you claim it has been for about 2,000 years now.

Actually wasn't the Messiah born in Bethlehem? See Matt. 2:1-8.

Acts 3 seems to be a significant point of interest to you. You see it as the point where the kingdom was interrupted, but Col. 1:13 doesn't present things in that way. The kingdom was established. Think back to Acts 2:36. Peter declared Jesus to be both Lord and Christ. The word Greek word "Christ" was the equivalent of the Hebrew word "Messiah." In essence, Peter was declaring Jesus to be the king of the Jews (see also the reference to the King of kings in 1 Tim. 6:15). Now, what kind of king was Jesus supposed to be if he couldn't set up His kingdom as He promised?

Where does it say the kingdom is to last 1,000 years? Is this based on your understanding of Rev. 20:2? If so, that is NOT what the passage says.

Bottom line. Whatever understanding you obtain from Acts 3:21 should agree with Col. 1:13, since "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16a), right? I don't understand how you can take what you think a passage means (Acts 3:21) to undermine what a passage plainly says (Col. 1:13), and act like this is how truth is supposed to be determined.

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Third, the law of Moses included many washings (note Heb. 6:1). However, it wasn’t any of these that John preached to prepare the way for the Lord. John preached a baptism of repentance (Matt. 3:11). He was preparing the people to receive the Lord (Malachi 3:1a). They did this by repenting of their sins. Later, the Jews that accepted that Jesus was the Messiah (the Christ) were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (by His authority – not John’s) in Acts 2:38 to have their sins taken away by being united with Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (see Romans 6:3-11). This is the baptism that Jesus authorized the apostles to preach i.e. Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16.

I find no water in the baptism of Romans 6:3-11. Please explain to me how the baptism of Romans 6:3-11 be the baptism that Jesus authorized the apostles to preach in Matt. 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15-26 when it was still part of the mystery that was kept secret, since the world began? The purpose of the Cross was unknown prior to the raising up of the Apostle Paul. Even Peter at Pentecost preached the cross as something to be repented of.

There are at least 12 different baptisms mention in the Bible. 2 are real (no water ceremony), 5 are figurative (no water ceremony) and 5 are ritual (water ceremony). Today there is one baptism (Eph.4:5) in effect and it is the Spirit (Holy) baptism of 1Cor.12.13.

The mystery that you are referring to is simpy not a factor in this discussion.
The mystery is discussed in Eph. 3:1-9. The mystery involves the Gentiles being fellow heirs of the gospel (see verse 6).

Actually, in Acts 2 Peter DOESN'T preach that the cross was something to be repented of. Rather, it is their rejection of Jesus as being Lord and Christ that needed to be repented of. Notice, the command is two-fold: repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Compare this passage to Acts 10:47-48. That text clearly reveals to us that the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ -- the same as in the name of the Lord -- is in water. And, we learn from Acts 2:38 that baptism was necessary to have their sins taken away (from the expression "for the remission of sins). Now, go over and note Romans 6:3-11. It explains what occurs during baptism. Note verse 7. We die to sin and are freed from it -- in baptism. This harmonizes with Acts 2:38 (in water - determined from Acts 10:47-48), which teaches that baptism is necessary "for the remission of sins." Compare this thought also to Acts 22:16. See the harmony that exists between the Scriptures?

Another angle to consider concerning 1 Cor. 12:13. Who directs us to respond to the gospel through the word of God? Isn't it the Spirit? Wasn't he the one directing the words of the apostle Peter in Acts chapter 2 when he preached and stated the terms for salvation in 2:38? And, didn't 3,000 Jews obey what they were told to do (verse 41)? And, weren't they saved and added to the church (verse 47)? Now, what baptism did the Spirit baptize them with with in the text of this discussion? Wasn't it the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ in verse 38 -- which was in water (Acts 10:47-48)? See my point?

Concerning the one baptism: look at the purpose for the baptism in the name of the Lord and compare it with the purpose for the baptism with the Holy Spirit? It seems to me that your reasoning would conclude that we don't have a need today to have our sins taken away, because that is what occurs in baptism i.e. Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:7, 1 Peter 3:21.

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Fourth, there are only two instances in the New Testament where Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit – the apostles in Acts chapter 2 and the Gentiles in Acts chapter 10. In both instances, it was clearly evident what occurred i.e. speaking in tongues. In addition to this, a measure of the Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of the apostle’s hands (Acts 8:17-18; 19:6). Have you considered why the Holy Spirit was promised to the apostles (see John 16:7-14)? We now have all truth i.e. 2 Tim. 3:16-17; James 1:25; 2 Pet. 1:3; Jude 3). What more do we need? We now have God’s complete word (delivered with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) that gives all we need to please and serve the Lord.

The disciples received the Holy Ghost in John 20:21. However, they did not receive the power until Pentecost. Jesus told them in Luke 24:49 to wait in Jerusalem "until ye be endued with power from on high."

The purpose of the Holy Ghost power was because Israel was "a sign nation." Isreal always required a sign and God alway gave them one. Signs were proof that it was from God. Those a Pentecost were given the Holy Ghost to bring all Israel back under one roof (so to speak), and then to be that "nation of priests" which would be a blessing to the famlies of the earth (nations), as promised Abram back in Genesis 12:1-3.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

Jesus told the disciples why He was sending the Comforter (Holy Spirit) to them (see John 14:16-18 and 16:7-14. The power of the Holy Spirit confirmed two things: the message and the messenger (see Heb. 2:3-4). It also signaled the coming of the kingdom (Mark 9:1).

We have previously discussed the blessing or seed promised in Gen. 12:3. It refers to Jesus -- NOT the nation of Israel.

1 Peter 2:5 discusses the holy priesthood.

Food for thought:
Gal. 3:26-27 describes how faith prompts us to be baptized into Jesus, where we also put on Christ. Now, note verse 29. We become Abraham's seed as a result of our favorable response to the gospel as described in verses 26-27.

[~Heavens_Bride~]

Well, the Bible contains certain writings, BUT not all writings that are know to be true. The Didache WAS considered part of the Bible for some folks, but it was ultimately not included at the Council of Hippo. Nonetheless, we know 1st and 2nd century Christians quote from it.

Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering all of these things, baptize "into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy Spirit" in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. Now if you are not able to do so in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don't have either, pour water three times on the head, "into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit." Now before the ritual cleansing, the baptizer and the one being baptized should fast, and any others who are able. Now you will give word for the one who is being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.

Since that is not in the Bible, do you have to ignore it? Can you use it? It was written around 50 AD by the remaining Disciples.

Just wondering here...

Does the Anglican or Orthodox church accept a person who was baptised with wather but was NOT dunked or poured over 3 times...but one time only. Also, what about if they were sprinkled.

Just a question. I am NOT opposed to infant baptism at all.

[gtsecc]

Just wondering here...

Does the Anglican or Orthodox church accept a person who was baptised with wather but was NOT dunked or poured over 3 times...but one time only. Also, what about if they were sprinkled.

Just a question. I am NOT opposed to infant baptism at all.

The Anglican and Orthodox and Roman Catholic requirements are:
1. water
2. that it is done in the name of the Trinity.

Age, and amount of water are not important.

The Baptism formula is from the Didache - written by apostles, including some of the original 12.

[Stinker]

Actually, in Acts 2 Peter DOESN'T preach that the cross was something to be repented of. Rather, it is their rejection of Jesus as being Lord and Christ that needed to be repented of. Notice, the command is two-fold: repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Compare this passage to Acts 10:47-48. That text clearly reveals to us that the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ -- the same as in the name of the Lord -- is in water. And, we learn from Acts 2:38 that baptism was necessary to have their sins taken away (from the expression "for the remission of sins). Now, go over and note Romans 6:3-11. It explains what occurs during baptism. Note verse 7. We die to sin and are freed from it -- in baptism. This harmonizes with Acts 2:38 (in water - determined from Acts 10:47-48), which teaches that baptism is necessary "for the remission of sins." Compare this thought also to Acts 22:16. See the harmony that exists between the Scriptures?

Another angle to consider concerning 1 Cor. 12:13. Who directs us to respond to the gospel through the word of God? Isn't it the Spirit? Wasn't he the one directing the words of the apostle Peter in Acts chapter 2 when he preached and stated the terms for salvation in 2:38? And, didn't 3,000 Jews obey what they were told to do (verse 41)? And, weren't they saved and added to the church (verse 47)? Now, what baptism did the Spirit baptize them with with in the text of this discussion? Wasn't it the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ in verse 38 -- which was in water (Acts 10:47-48)? See my point?

Concerning the one baptism: look at the purpose for the baptism in the name of the Lord and compare it with the purpose for the baptism with the Holy Spirit? It seems to me that your reasoning would conclude that we don't have a need today to have our sins taken away, because that is what occurs in baptism i.e. Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:7, 1 Peter 3:21. [DRA #44]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Peter commanded the people who had cried to have Jesus crucified and the vicious criminal Barabbas set free, to turn (repent) and be water baptized (this time in the name of Jesus Christ) unto the remission of sins. It wasn't the act of water baptism that was unto the remission of sins...but repentance. (Acts 2:37-38)

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins. (Mk.1:4)


Your angle on 1Cor.12:13 suggesting that it is the Holy Spirit's teaching on how we come to know how one enters the corporate body (church) that being water baptism, would make the actual event of one's salvation 100% dependent on symbolic act.

[Sonnie Parker]

Excellent job of laying the Scriptures out there so clearly DRA... I applaud you for your accuracy.


When Peter commanded the people who had cried to have Jesus crucified and the vicious criminal Barabbas set free, to turn (repent) and be water baptized (this time in the name of Jesus Christ) unto the remission of sins. It wasn't the act of water baptism that was unto the remission of sins...but repentance. (Acts 2:37-38)


Stinker... I was wondering when I'd run into you again. I'll be quick because DRA is doing such a wonderful job of rightly dividing the Word.

Your conclusion of what Acts 2:37-38 says could only be true if you eliminated part of the passage. Have you even bothered to investigate the Greek text? Take a look at any you wish... they all are the same with this passage.

I just don't understand why you would not take the passage for what it says instead of trying to have your ears tickled.

I'm done here!

Keep up the good work DRA!

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: Stinker

When Peter commanded the people who had cried to have Jesus crucified and the vicious criminal Barabbas set free, to turn (repent) and be water baptized (this time in the name of Jesus Christ) unto the remission of sins. It wasn't the act of water baptism that was unto the remission of sins...but repentance. (Acts 2:37-38)

Excellent job of laying the Scriptures out there so clearly DRA... I applaud you for your accuracy.

Stinker... I was wondering when I'd run into you again. I'll be quick because DRA is doing such a wonderful job of rightly dividing the Word.

Your conclusion of what Acts 2:37-38 says could only be true if you eliminated part of the passage. Have you even bothered to investigate the Greek text? Take a look at any you wish... they all are the same with this passage.

I just don't understand why you would not take the passage for what it says instead of trying to have your ears tickled.

I'm done here!

Keep up the good work DRA!

Sonny,

Thanks for your support. I am humbled. The truth deserves the best we can give it. My philosophy is simply to try to keep from messing it up. I pray that God will accept my efforts to give the attention to His word that it deserves. :bow:

Stinker,

You seemed to have overlooked the word "and" in Acts 2:38. It is a coordinating conjunction that connects equal parts. Thus, if repentance is necessary for the remission of sins, then so is baptism -- because they are connected by the word "and." Note Romans 10:9. It says: "That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (NKJV). Now, let's apply your reasoning to this passage. Let's NOT connect confession and baptism. Let's treat the passage just like you are proposing that we do in Acts 2:38. If we use this approach, belief is eliminated. In essence, your approach to Acts 2:38 eliminates baptism all right, but then eliminates belief in Romans 10:9. Like Regis asks, "Is that your final answer?"

:eek:

And, you also failed to harmonize your understanding of Acts 2:38 with other relevant passages of Scripture. Like Romans 6:3-11. And Acts 22:16. The truth should harmonize when you accept that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16a).

[Stinker]

Anyone can become 'locked in' to seeing only one way of interpreting certain scriptures. I know this because I was at one time.

An example of being mentally 'locked in' on such a scripture as Acts 2:38 would be to take it out of it's 33A.D. context and give it a 21st century interpretation.




Here is how Acts 2:37-38 would have been seen in 33A.D.

The people in Acts 2:37 well understood that water baptism was being performed by John and that it was a sign that they had repented (turned) unto the remission of their sins, to the Lord. It would have been shocking to this crowd to then turn to the very person that they had screamed to be crucified, in order to the remission of their sins, and be baptized in His name as well!

[- DRA -]

Your angle on 1Cor.12:13 suggesting that it is the Holy Spirit's teaching on how we come to know how one enters the corporate body (church) that being water baptism, would make the actual event of one's salvation 100% dependent on symbolic act.

First off, do you believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the words of the apostles as they were teaching what was necessary to be saved under the gospel of Christ? Either you do or you don't. Which is it? If you believe that He is guiding them to all truth as Jesus promised He would (John 16:13), then you have to give credit to whom credit is due. I sincerely believe that this is the sense in which the Holy Spirit baptizes us into the church in 1 Cor. 12:13. Look at Acts 2:47. The Lords adds those to the church who are saved. Thus, it all comes down to being baptized into the church by the Holy Spirit involving what it takes to be saved. That's it in nutshell. Now, do you something credible for us to consider? Consider your response. You don't tell us what you understand the passage to say. Give us something to work with.

Baptism is indeed symbolic. By faith in the working of God (Col. 2:12-13), we can be united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection to die to sins, be freed from them, and be alive to God (Rom. 6:3-11). Baptism is an act of faith. It is based on faith. Without faith, all that one sees is the water. Not Jesus. Not His death. Not His burial. Not His resurrection. Remember the words of our Lord: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved."

[- DRA -]

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins. (Mk.1:4)

Note Acts 2:38. The Jews on Pentecost were commanded to be baptized "in the name of the Lord" -- not with John's baptism. There is a sense in which John's baptism was "unto the remission of sins." In what sense? It surely didn't take sins away before Jesus shed His blood on the cross i.e. Matt. 26:28, Heb. 9:22b. What John's baptism did was to prepare the people to receive the Messiah. Those that did would obtain the remission of sins made possible by the blood of Christ. Jesus died on the cross and made the one-time sacrifice for sin. After Jesus' death, His testament (or will) went into effect i.e. Acts 2:38. Then, instead of John's baptism, the baptism in the name of the Lord was commanded. This baptism was designed by God to unite us with the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection and to free us from sin (Rom. 6:3-11). Assuming, of course, that we are willing to obey the Lord.

And, don't forget to consider Acts 18:24 through 19:5. Note how John's baptism falls into the scheme of things under the gospel of Christ. It doesn't.
It served its purpose and is no longer applicable.

[Edouard]

DR:

Why is so hard to accept the fact that Christ commanded us on two occasions to be baptized???

One to a teacher of the Law Nicodemus, who understood more of what Christ was saying then we ever will!

Second AFTER he was ressurected from the dead... appearing to the disciples!!

Faith is an outward expression and is commanded by Christ.
A choice to follow him...now how can one make that choice as an infant...
and you still did not respond to my actual questions..but gace me your answer as to why you believe that...

If infant baptism was important and needed to be done...would not the angels have told Mary or Joseph - but they didn't why? the Jews had a similiar practicew..which early christians carried over -- most likely jewish christians..

Secondly... for those that may believe in original sin -- would it not have been imperative that Christ would have to have sinned, just by being born???

Third..O.T. times..God rewarded with earthly measures and there was no concept of Heaven or Hell.. In the NT we are promised eternal rewards! Difference in concept..
Christ fulfilled the law.. by being the ultimate sacrifice..

Fourth.. Corinthians does talk about the renewing of our mind.. being buried with Christ then raised... hmm... baptism sound familiar.. how can we be buried by the Holy Spirit then raised up?

Lastly, what is the greek definition of baptism???
bap: to sink, for a ship to be submerged under water
( there is no differencing on opinions on what the word actually means linguistically speaking)

Edouard

[Edouard]

One more thing..
IF Christ was baptized as an adult, and the disciples baptized with water after Christ came.. why?? what would be the purpose if it wasn't needed?? and at Pentecost why baptizre if not necessary..???

out of our faith and belief in our Lord comes action..
why are we so afraid to be baptized?

Edouard
I will respond to your post at a later date...

[Dispy]

:
The Holy Spirit came upon the apostles in Acts 2:1-4 . . . just as Jesus promised in John 16:7-14. For a totally different reason, the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles in Acts 10:47-48. Look at Peter’s conclusion in verse 47. He asks if anyone can forbid water. Why? Obviously, God had shown that He approved of the Gentiles having the gospel preached to them. They are candidates for baptism. So, like the Jews in Acts chapter 2, the Gentiles are COMMANDED to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:48). Acts 2:38 explained what resulted from this baptism -- the remission of sins.

John 16:7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you: but if I depart, I willl send him unto you."

It appears to me that the Comforter will come after His departure.

However the same author says in 20:22 "And when he said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto themReceive ye the Holy Ghost.

In Luke 24, Jesus instructed His disciples to remain in "Jerusalem, until ye be enduded with power from on high.

In Matthew 3:11 John the Baptist said that it would be Jesus that baptized with the Holy Ghost. Therefore at Pentecost, those in the upper room received the Holy Ghost as a result of the promise that John the